This short-sighted, reckless, and witless advocacy of open borders is the reason I stopped subscribing to @TheEconomist. Any rich country that adopted it would probably double its population within a couple of years and fall into chaos. (Or show me quantitative models otherwise.)https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1010187848098762753 …
-
-
Replying to @primalpoly @TheEconomist
No, you go first. There is no burden to rebut arbitrary a priori BS. What's the quantative model that says this happens?
5 replies 1 retweet 43 likes -
Open borders and a wellfare/social system cannot coexist. There you go, on that point alone a country goes under and open borders has many more destructive implications.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Nurgle37 @willwilkinson and
The U.S. welfare system isnt open access. Only citizens can get SSI and SNAP. Non citizen need 5 years of residency before being able to access TANF or Medicaid (which often have worked requirements).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
True 'open borders' means open citizenship, and open access to the welfare state.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
No, it just means open borders. Its letting people live/work in the U.S., not changing the welfare system.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
So you advocate a two-tiered system of politically disenfranchised workers and elite citizens with voting rights and welfare benefits? Like in Kuwait?
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
If free movement is a liberty right, why isn't voting in the place where you live a liberty right?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.